What Happens between Visits? Adverse and Potential Adverse Events among a Low-Income, Urban, Ambulatory Population with Diabetes

Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, Center for Vulnerable Populations, San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, California 94143-1364, USA.
Quality and Safety in Health Care (Impact Factor: 2.16). 04/2010; 19(3):223-8. DOI: 10.1136/qshc.2008.029116
Source: PubMed


Little is known about adverse events (AEs) that occur between physician visits for ambulatory chronic disease patients. An automated telephone self-management support programme for a diverse population of diabetes patients was implemented to capture AEs, describe the self-management domains from which they emanate and explore contributing causes.
AEs and potential AEs (PotAEs) were identified among 111 ethnically diverse diabetes patients. An AE is an injury that results from either medical management or patient self-management; a PotAE is an unsafe state likely to lead to an event if it persists without intervention. Medical record reviews were conducted to ascertain which self-management domain was involved with the event and to explore contributing causes.
Among the 111 patients, 86% had at least one event detected over the 9-month observation period. 111 AEs and 153 PotAEs were identified. For all events, medication management was the most common domain (166 events, 63%). Only 20% of events reflected a single contributing cause; in the remaining 80%, a combination of system, clinician and patient factors contributed to their occurrence. Patient actions were implicated in 205 (77%) events, systems issues in 183 (69%) events and inadequate physician-patient communication in 155 (59%) events. Aside from communication, primary care clinician actions contributed to the occurrence of the event in only 16 cases (6%).
Our findings reveal a complex safety ecology, with multiple contributing causes for AEs and PotAEs among ambulatory diabetes patients. Moreover, patients themselves seem to be key drivers of safety and of AEs, suggesting that patient-level self-management support and patient-centred communication are critical to AE prevention.


Available from: Margaret A Handley, Jul 25, 2014
  • Source
    • "Adverse events included those reported from individual NHPs as well as any potential interactions that may have occurred from concurrent NHP use and with medications that participants were taking. We refer to this as the potential for adverse events previously defined as an unsafe state, not currently an event, but likely to lead to an event if it persists without intervention [27]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background To address knowledge gaps regarding natural health product (NHP) usage in mental health populations, we examined their use in adults with mood disorders, and explored the potential for adverse events. Methods Food and NHP intake was obtained from 97 adults with mood disorders. NHP data was used to compare prevalence with population norms (British Columbia Nutrition Survey; BCNS). Bivariate and regression analyses examined factors associated with NHP use. Assessment of potential adverse effects of NHP use was based on comparing nutrient intakes from food plus supplements with the Dietary Reference Intakes and by reviewing databases for reported adverse health effects. Results Two-thirds (66%; 95% CI 56 to 75) were taking at least one NHP; 58% (95% CI 47 to 68) were taking NHPs in combination with psychiatric medications. The proportion of each type of NHP used was generally higher than the BCNS (range of p’s < 0.05 to 0.0001). When intakes from food and NHP sources were combined, a small proportion exceeded any Lowest-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Levels: only for niacin (n = 17) and magnesium (n = 6), two nutrients for which the potential for adverse effects is minimal. Conversely, about 38% (95% CI 28 to 49) of the sample were taking a non-nutrient based NHP for which previous adverse events had been documented. Conclusions The prevalent use of NHPs in this population suggests that health care providers need to be knowledgeable about their characteristics. The efficacy and safety of NHPs in relation to mental health warrants further investigation.
    BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine 04/2013; 13(1):80. DOI:10.1186/1472-6882-13-80 · 2.02 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The severity of the effect was divided into no harm, minimal harm (no change in symptoms but have abnormal laboratory results), mild harm (mild reversible complications not requiring hospitalisation or symptoms lasting less than one day), moderate harm (reversible complications not requiring hospitalisation or prolonged symptoms lasting more than one day) and severe harm (irreversible complications or requiring hospitalisation, permanent disability or death).21 Finally, the preventability of the ADE was grouped based on established definitions of preventability from prior patient safety studies.22 The preventability of the ADE is classified as follows: (1) ameliorable—severity could have been substantially reduced with different actions or procedures (on the part of the patient, provider or system), (2) preventable—could have been avoided as probably a result of an error or system design flaw or could have been avoided with a patient action that is, reasonable to expect, or (3) nonpreventable.21 "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The extent of outpatient adverse drug events (ADEs) remains unclear. Trigger tools are used as a screening method to identify care episodes that may be ADEs, but their value in a population with high chronic-illness burden remains unclear. The authors used six abnormal laboratory triggers for detecting ADEs among adults in outpatient care. Eligible patients were included if they were >18 years, sought primary or urgent care between November 2008 and November 2009 and were prescribed at least one medication. The authors then used the clinical / administrative database to identity patients with these triggers. Two physicians conducted in-depth chart review of any medical records with identified triggers. The authors reviewed 1342 triggers representing 622 unique episodes among 516 patients. The trigger tool identified 91 (15%) ADEs. Of the 91 ADEs included in the analysis, 49 (54%) occurred during medication monitoring, 41 (45%) during patient self-administration, and one could not be determined. 96% of abnormal international normalised ratio triggers were ADEs, followed by 12% of abnormal blood urea nitrogen triggers, 9% of abnormal alanine aminotransferase triggers, 8% of abnormal serum creatinine triggers and 3% of aspartate aminotransferase triggers. The findings imply that other tools such as text triggers or more complex automated screening rules, which combine data hierarchically are needed to effectively screen for ADEs in chronically ill adults seen in primary care.
    BMJ quality & safety 05/2012; 21(8):670-5. DOI:10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000643 · 3.99 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To estimate the incidence of adverse drug events (ADEs) associated with health care visits among U.S. adults across all ambulatory settings. We analyzed data from two nationally representative probability sample surveys: the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and the National Hospital and Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. From 2005 to 2007, the presence of an ADE was specifically defined, requested, and recorded in these surveys. Secondary data analysis. An estimated 13.5 million ADE-related visits occurred between 2005 and 2007 (0.5 percent of all visits), the large majority (72 percent) occurring in outpatient practice settings, and the remaining in emergency departments. Older patients (age ≥65 years) had the highest age-specific ADE rate, 3.8 ADEs per 10,000 persons per year. In adjusted analyses of outpatient visits, there was an increased odds of an ADE-related visit with increased medication burden (odds ratio [OR] for six to eight medications compared with no medications, OR 3.83 [2.20, 6.65]), and increased odds of ADEs associated with primary care visits compared with specialty visits (OR 2.22 [1.70, 2.89]). Approximately 4.5 million ambulatory visits related to ADEs occur each year, the majority of these in outpatient office practices. A greater focus on ADE prevention and detection is warranted among patients receiving multiple medications in primary care practices.
    Health Services Research 05/2011; 46(5):1517-33. DOI:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01269.x · 2.78 Impact Factor
Show more